The fossil record is the claim not the evidence

[Simon Moon]

That's a great question, because it's the sort of stupid shit any of them would have come up with. In this case, it's in Wooters' signature. I just can't tell if that's just what happens when his brain cells create random friction or if he's implying that fossils are manmade.

I first read that as 'random fiction'.


But I guess, both are equally applicable.

[Bad Writer]

"The birds and the bees" is the claim, not the evidence. Now storks! THAT's a brilliant idea!

[Lemonvariable72]

I saw the post where Chad originally shat it out of his brain. I think my eyes were so full of brown in that moment that I had to step away to cleanse them.

Where is it. Fossils are a bit of a passion of mine.

[Bad Writer]

I saw the post where Chad originally shat it out of his brain. I think my eyes were so full of brown in that moment that I had to step away to cleanse them.

Where is it. Fossils are a bit of a passion of mine.

Hmmm...I looked at his posts from just this past week but couldn't find it. Perhaps I was mistaken that it was a post of his; it's possible that I was remembering seeing his sig and not a post. Toting it around like a fucking trophy though is pretty dumb shit. I wonder what he would think if he ever got a chance to spend five minutes with an honest-to-god archaeologist, hefting hundred thousand year old fossils in his own hands...would he tell that archaeologist to his/her face that those old fossils were a figment of his/her imagination? I can't imagine that would go down so well.

[Lemonvariable72]

Where is it. Fossils are a bit of a passion of mine.

Hmmm...I looked at his posts from just this past week but couldn't find it. Perhaps I was mistaken that it was a post of his; it's possible that I was remembering seeing his sig and not a post. Toting it around like a fucking trophy though is pretty dumb shit. I wonder what he would think if he ever got a chance to spend five minutes with an honest-to-god archaeologist, hefting hundred thousand year old fossils in his own hands...would he tell that archaeologist to his/her face that those old fossils were a figment of his/her imagination? I can't imagine that would go down so well.

I think even Reverend Bob bakker would hit him with the fossil.

[Angrboda]

While I'm reluctant to defend Chad, there is a charitable interpretation that can be made. The fossil record itself doesn't support any specific theory without being interpreted to support a specific theory, taking into account any relevant auxiliary hypotheses needed to form that interpretation (such as the interpretation of dating methods and of the meaning of the geological column). The more defensible statement, interpreting him charitably, is saying that the fossil evidence is not in itself evidence that interpreting it to support evolution is correct; that the fossil record supports the evolutionary hypothesis is a claim, and one which requires additional support for it to be robust (from physics, from molecular biology, from dating of the geological column, and so forth). The fossil record by itself is a piece of evidence, but by itself, on the whole, it is not overly persuasive if considered independent of the other evidences. It is the mutual reinforcement of multiple lines of evidence which is what makes evolution a robust theory. If argued on the basis of fossils alone, it's hardly conclusive. Granted, I don't put any stock in it, but interpreting the fossil evidence alone as the result of a catastrophic flood is on much more equal footing with the evolutionary hypothesis, if, one doesn't take into account other evidences which corroborate the evolutionary hypothesis, and demote the global flood hypothesis.

So, perhaps Chad did mean it in an indefensible sense. However, I'm inclined to suspect that he was aiming for a parallel slogan similar to the "bible is the claim, not the evidence" slogan that is currently alive on the forum. I'm willing to accept he meant the more defensible statement above, and ended up trying to be too clever by half.

[Lemonvariable72]

While I'm reluctant to defend Chad, there is a charitable interpretation that can be made. The fossil record itself doesn't support any specific theory without being interpreted to support a specific theory, taking into account any relevant auxiliary hypotheses needed to form that interpretation (such as the interpretation of dating methods and of the meaning of the geological column). The more defensible statement, interpreting him charitably, is saying that the fossil evidence is not in itself evidence that interpreting it to support evolution is correct; that the fossil record supports the evolutionary hypothesis is a claim, and one which requires additional support for it to be robust (from physics, from molecular biology, from dating of the geological column, and so forth). The fossil record by itself is a piece of evidence, but by itself, on the whole, it is not overly persuasive if considered independent of the other evidences. It is the mutual reinforcement of multiple lines of evidence which is what makes evolution a robust theory. If argued on the basis of fossils alone, it's hardly conclusive. Granted, I don't put any stock in it, but interpreting the fossil evidence alone as the result of a catastrophic flood is on much more equal footing with the evolutionary hypothesis, if, one doesn't take into account other evidences which corroborate the evolutionary hypothesis, and demote the global flood hypothesis.

So, perhaps Chad did mean it in an indefensible sense. However, I'm inclined to suspect that he was aiming for a parallel slogan similar to the "bible is the claim, not the evidence" slogan that is currently alive on the forum. I'm willing to accept he meant the more defensible statement above, and ended up trying to be too clever by half.

You are being too charitable. There is another feature played out in the fossil record that was predicted by evolution before it was truly discovered. The simpler organisms procede the more complex ones. Obviously there are reversion's and simple organism that survive very well, such as horseshoe crabs, but this is the order in the sediments (you do not need to even under stand the geologic colomn or its age to understand that bottom sediments are older.)
Invertabates
Fish
Amphibians
Reptiles
Mammals.

When a theory predicts the behavior of a natural phenomenon, that phenomenon is evidence for that theory. Much like the law of attraction is phenomenon that is predicted by the theory of gravity by newton.

[Angrboda]

You are being too charitable. There is another feature played out in the fossil record that was predicted by evolution before it was truly discovered. The simpler organisms procede the more complex ones. Obviously there are reversion's and simple organism that survive very well, such as horseshoe crabs, but this is the order in the sediments (you do not need to even under stand the geologic colomn or its age to understand that bottom sediments are older.)
Invertabates
Fish
Amphibians
Reptiles
Mammals.

When a theory predicts the behavior of a natural phenomenon, that phenomenon is evidence for that theory. Much like the law of attraction is phenomenon that is predicted by the theory of gravity by newton.

I didn't say it wasn't evidence in support of the hypothesis of evolution, only that it doesn't rule out other interpretations by itself. And note that you brought in additional lines of evidence in order to count "a hit," but didn't subtract a hit for the paucity of the fossil record, and its less than stellar testimony to transitional forms. Being skeptical means you count both the hits and the misses, and weigh all hypotheses on the same scale. Arguably, on the fossil record alone, ignoring shared assumptions, evolution still wins, but it's no longer a slam dunk and therefore becomes a claim in need of additional evidence.

[Bad Writer]

The fossil record, if anything, shows that there has been life on this planet far longer than a YEC's Holy Book purports.

[FreeTony]

Granted, I don't put any stock in it, but interpreting the fossil evidence alone as the result of a catastrophic flood is on much more equal footing with the evolutionary hypothesis, if, one doesn't take into account other evidences which corroborate the evolutionary hypothesis, and demote the global flood hypothesis.

A good scientific hypothesis shouldn't allow information to be "interpretted".* It should include a way of testing the hypothesis.

Even if all we had was the fossil record, if a global flood 4000-6000 years ago was a scientific hypothesis you would expect to see a mass extinction (amongst land animals) event 4-6000 years ago in the fossil record. You then go and look at the fossils to see if this is the case.


Thests almost never make good hypotheses when talking about their religion. They say "God exists". "How do I test this claim of yours" you reply. "Don't test God!" or "You can't" or "You have to believe he exists first" are the sorts of untestable claims you get back.

What is the Creationism hypothesis? How do you test it? The answer isn't reading the bible.